Talk:Iraq War

	Pending tasks for Iraq War:
	Use <s> and </s> (aka. strikeout) when each of these are done: convert "200x in Iraq" articles (x==2...7 e.g. 2007 in Iraq) to Wikipedia:Summary style Wiki link the various Iraq War articles to relevant sections in this article Give full information for references that are currently only links to sources

Please start new sections at the bottom of the page.

refugee percent of population

What was the population at the time of the invasion? Based on CIA figures, the current population is about 29 million. However, this article says "There are more than 3.9 million refugees of Iraq, almost 16% of the population." 3.9 million divided by 16 percent gives a total population of around 24-25 million. That means the population grew by about 4-5 million since the invasion. That does not sound right. I do not understand why the current/today CIA figures would report a population higher than what China Times reported was the population at the time of invasion.

Is that normal population growth? That the population grows by 20% within 6 years or so?

I think i understand it now. The CIA figure must be taking total population, including refugees. Therefore the 16% probably should be 13% because 4 million is 13% of 29 million. Well anyways, China Times probably got the information from somewhere else and that figure is not very clear. I suppose this is somewhat minute. Sp0 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"War on Terror"

In my humble opinion, this article should be taken off the "War on Terror" list. Iraq was not responsible for 9/11 or any other terrorist attack. The "war on terror" association is just Bush propaganda. Afganistan is the war on terror. Iraq is not. Dalebert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.141 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The stated cause for invading Iraq was to remove WMD's that might be given to terrorists. This is Wikipedia, we don't give two shits about your oppinion, this place is for facts.

I think that at the top of the info box it should say "Part of the War on Terror" just as the article on Vietnam says "Part of the Cold War"

Dunnsworth (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Bush did not provide any evidence of "weapons of mass destruction", so you could basically say that he just made the whole thing up. Because of his actions, thousands of people in Iraq are dying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.7.210.243 (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem was that there was "evidence" -- see Iraq War#Authorization for the use of force. Listing Port (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it should still be part of the War On Terror list because there are terrists there the 2003 invasion of iraq article has nothing to do with the war on terror but the iraq war does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorIBurnett (talk • contribs) 04:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, there were never any wmds found and Al Qaeda, whom Bush continually stated had links to Iraq, actually hated Hussein for his [b]secular[/b] state. Thus, I think that because Wikipedia is about facts and not propaganda, the War in Iraq should not be part of the War on Terror. 24.199.206.42 (talk) 22:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Title of Article

It seems Americentric and vague to make "Iraq War" the title of the article. Wouldn't something along the lines of "2003 US-Iraq war" be more neutral? I know that my suggested title is kind of messy, but I basically think that anything would be better than "Iraq War".

Not seeing how it's Americentric, exactly. It was a multinational coalition which participated; granted this was spearheaded by the US, but Britain and others cannot be counted out, and the focal location is and always has been Iraq. No "official" name has been given to the conflict, major media refers to it as the "Iraq War" or "War in Iraq" almost universally, and it has been going on for more than five years now -- not limited to 2003 (unless Sino-European War of 1937 would also be appropriate). Considering all of these things, I see nothing wrong with leaving the title the way it is, unless someone can find a compelling reason to the contrary. ~ S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 09:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Iraq_War/Archive_8#Requested_move. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How is it less Americentric to say "2003 US-Iraq War", when there are many other countries and entities involved (Britain, Australia, Poland, Italy, Iran, etc.)? I think the title "Iraq War" is fine. Superm401 - Talk 05:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You two bring up a good point about it being a multinational coalition(like I said, my proposed title kind of sucked), but when you say that "major media" outlets refer to it as the "Iraq war", you are referring to American/western news outlets. This isn't the only war that Iraq has been involved in. The title is comparable to Iraqis referring to it as the "America war".--68.149.181.145 (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting that the war is confined to Iraq and that the Iraqi combatants haven't set up a second front anywhere else, like the USA or UK or launched a submarine fleet to battle it out under the ocean waves (unless you know different...). Colin4C (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I would also be in favour of a title change. Iraq has, as they say, been involved in a number of wars. I think "2003 Iraq War" would probably be sufficient, though "2003 US-Iraq war" would probably be better. Yes I know other countries were involved, but nobody doubts that the US was the prime mover here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

But is is not the '2003' war anymore than the Second World War was the '1939' war. Everyone knows it as the 'Iraq War'. Mention the 'Iraq War' at a bus stop or a bar and everybody will immediately know what you are talking about. Iraq is the focus of the war, attacked by forces from many different nations and also attracting jihadists from several different countries as part of the defence and being the site of a civil war also. This latter involves Iraq vs Iraq. Therefore the 'Iraq War' is the most apt designation. Colin4C (talk) 08:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI for everyone, "official" names have been given to this conflict depending on the country you are in. In the American case, we call it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" which I PROUDLY took part in. Call it Americentric. I don't care. Feral Mind (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The obvious previous equivalent of the term 'Iraq War' is the 'Vietnam War'. In theory the latter could have been called the US-Vietnam War but nobody ever did. As for 'Iraqi Freedom', history will judge... Colin4C (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Technically, isn't Operation Iraqi Freedom a conflict? War was never formally declared; I disagree with the title being the "Iraq War" --Alpha Apache —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.119.80 (talk) 19:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I remember this being addressed several times in the archives; per WP:NC, we use what the major media uses. Listing Port (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

In respone to someone saying the Iraq War is not a war because it was never declared. Dictionary.com says War-a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air; says nothing about war having to be declared. Dunnsworth (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to realize, Dunnsworth, is that in the United States, war is to be declared by Congress. See Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution. This is a matter under some debate, as the framers left the ability in the president's hands to fend off sudden attacks, etc, a scope that most would probably agree is there more for defense and retaliation than initiating a war. This, however, would make the "war" with Iraq unlawful, legally obscure at best, as it was never "truly" declared one to begin with. Calling it the Iraq Conflict would be the more neutral and politically correct terminology. 12.202.189.47 (talk) 16:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Authorization for Use of Force in Iraq, passed by overwhelming majorities in both houses, as a declaration of war for the purposes of the U.S. Constitution. Even if that weren't the case, though, the article name should follow common English Language usage, irrespective of whether any one nation considers it a "war" or not. Warren Dew (talk) 06:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Slanted

This article is why I do not allow my college students to use Wikipedia as a source.

The information is slanted and useless. The most recent example is the reference to Woods' and Lacey's report Iraqi Perspectives Project: Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents," vol. 1.

The Wikipedia article uses this paper to "prove" Saddam and Al Qaeda did not cooperate. In fact, the report states that Saddam DID cooperate with elements of Al Qaeda - just not the leadership. Read the abstract on Page 93 if you don't want to search the entire document. I know many of you will do as I ask because you appear incapable of reading the entire report.

There are several other references which are OPINION pieces rather than investigative reports. Poorly done, vapid, and slanted -- three things we should banish from Wikipedia entries.

[1]Iraqi Perspectives Project. Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents. Volume 1 (Redacted)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas J. Mason (talk • contribs) March 22, 2008

Your profession and negative views towards wikipedia are rather irrelevant here, and please refrain from making personal attacks against wikipedia editors, anyway this information is irrelevant to this article, perhaps you should see the article Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda timeline which discusses the alleged links between Saddam and Al Qaeda in detail and is well sourced (most of these allegations are debunked) Thisglad (talk) 08:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

What? His negative views come as a result of what he sees as inaccuracy. He doesn't see it as an inaccuracy because of his negative views. Did you take the time to look into what he was saying, or did you just immediately avoid it? He's not saying that any allegations were debunked, he's saying that the information presented, which cite the report "Iraqi Perspectives Project" are improper due to the actual contents of said report. I think this is a very valid point, and that you shouldn't ignore it simply because of his profession or negative view of this article. Professor, go ahead and make the edit, you have my blessing. And I think the more views of professors the better! Beamathan (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Page 93 says, "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." Do you believe that this is at odds with what the article says? ("Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found.") 12.7.175.2 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

IRAG R LOSING THE WAR —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.156.149 (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Is that President Bush speaking? Colin4C (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Colin4C: It's too bad that Bush didn't send troops to IRAG instead and left poor Iraq alone. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anonymous college professor that this Wikipedia sounds very slanted. The article minimizes the proven links between Saddam Hussein and terrorists. To come back to the question by User: 12.7.175.2, yes, the report contradicts the sentence "Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating, but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found." The 2008 Pentagon report certainly proves that there were links. The only way you can deny such a link is if you very narrowly define "al-Qaeda" as the immediate group of terrorists around Osama bin Laden. That would be a misunderstanding of what al-Qaeda is. I don't have a link to the full report but a good argument is brought forward by Stephen Hayes in this article: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/889pvpxc.asp.

I am afraid some of the opinions here are either falling for the ambiguous and misleading use of language that was such a feature of the build up to war or are themselves indulging in purposeful use of such language. There is no evidence of any real "collaborative relationship" between al-Quaeda and Hussein. There were some contacts between Hussein and some members of al-Quaeda but then there have in the past been links between Donald Rumsfeld and Hussein, at which the US administration gave Hussein assistance, and members of the British Government and the IRA! "Links", as it is phrased somewhat ambiguously, are not the same as a "collaborative relationship" and any professor who elides the two is not worth his tenure. Let's take that sentence from page 93 again: "While these documents do not reveal direct coordination and assistance between the Saddam regime and the al Qaeda network, they do indicate that Saddam was willing to use, albeit cautiously, operatives affiliated with al Qaeda as long as Saddam could have these terrorist–operatives monitored closely." We are obviously dealing with fine terminological distinctions here, but does that really conflict with a statement in the article saying there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship? Perhaps the sentence might be better phrased more fully: "...but, although some links between Hussein's government and members of al-Queda have been alleged, a sustained collaborative relationship between the two organisations has not been found".As it stands,however, it is not slanted nonsense but actually a rather fair, if brief summary of the current evidence. I think it is a pity that someone who seems unable to read his sources without getting his glasses steamed up with apparently partisan fury seems so quick to criticise others in such arrogant terms.Buyo (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph in the article mentions Saddam's support for the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Dream Academy (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this entire article sounds very biased. Justifications are offered at every paragraph for why someone said something rather than only saying it was said. "Both claims were supported by some U.S. intelligence.", "Some U.S. officials claimed Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda had been cooperating,[49] but no evidence of any collaborative relationship has been found.". With a subject this highly in dispute it is unlikely that an objective article can be written that contains all of the data this one tries to convey. I suggest that most of the information be removed to other topics that are referenced from this one. Those topics will have more space to present the large number of references related to them. There are many objective facts. Any facts in dispute should be referenced as such and have their own pages, such as the death toll, veracity of reasons given for actions, and labeling some actions war crimes. The integrity of all of wikipedia is at stake. Biased articles like this could shift the use of wikipedia from a widely used resource to one ignored by most internet visitors. JoshuaGodinez (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As about half the comments in this section say, the article has an antiwar slant in many ways. I'll give additional examples: in the 2007 section, there is a tremendous amount of text on casualties, and virtually none on what was actually going on. There's nothing on how the Sunni tribal leaders turned against Al Qaeda in Iraq, which was the most important development in Iraq in the first half of 2007. There's a casualty graph with a least squares fit to a slowly increasing casualty rate over the period 2003-2007, with nearly invisible data points that, if they were visible, would show a steady decrease, by a factor of 3, in casualties over the time period of the actual surge. Minority prowar data - such as that mentioned above about cooperation with terrorists - is missing, while minority antiwar data - such as fringe element disagreements with generally accepted government statistics - is given equal coverage.

The whole article needs to be gone over with a fine tooth comb if it's to become a balanced article - hopefully suitable for use as a source in college classes, as the original poster in this section mentions. In the meantime, I'm going to put an NPOV tag on the article pointing to this section to differentiate it from those parts of Wikipedia that actually are suitable for use as college citations. Feel free to use this section to note additional point of view problems, or comment on them if you think you've fixed them so people from all points of view can review the fixes to see if they're adequate. Warren Dew (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Based on where this article was a year ago, we've come a long way toward presenting a lot of different perspectives, and I don't think that every section is problematic enough to warrant a POV tag. I've moved the POV tag to the 2007 Troop Surge Section for now, since this seems to be the locus of your complaints. -Yitzhak1995 (talk) 06:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The article may indeed have been worse a year ago - I know it was much worse three years ago - and if you've been cleaning it up, that's great. However, I'm afraid it still has a long way to go. The original comment in this section mentions a problem that pertains to the lead of the article, though, so the POV tag unfortunately needs to stay at the top. It also needs to keep the |Slanted portion so that people can refer to this section of the talk page to see what the POV problems with the article are.

Just to clarify, if it's not clear - all the issues in this section of the talk page need to be addressed - not just the ones I specifically added, but all the ones other people have complained about as well. I agree with all those complaints; I just didn't feel the need to copy and paste them all. Warren Dew (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Got it. -Yitzhak1995 (talk) 07:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I think the simplest way to remove the POV from the lead would be to delete the middle two paragraphs on justification for the war, and just leave the first and last paragraphs summarizing the war itself. This would allow me to move the POV tag to appropriate sections (which unfortunately is a lot of them, but it would be a start). I got this idea from looking at the World War II article, the lead of which says nothing about how the war started. I'd like some consensus on this before making the change, though. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Warren Dew (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The lead is possibly a little too long as it is, and there's no need to go that in depth into the rationale for war in the introduction. There's plenty of room for that discussion in appropriate sections. Yitzhak1995 (talk) 17:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Awkward sentence flow

From the article: The fifth anniversary of the beginning of the war on 20 March was marked by a speech by George Bush declaring that the surge strategy had been a success and that America was headed for victory. Other commentators were less optimistic.

The sentence "Other commentators were less optimistic." implies that George Bush is simply a commentator, which is misleading. He's Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and by virtue of being in this role, his speech is more important than that of an ordinary commentator, regardless of the veracity of his assessment. I suggest that "Other commentators were less optimistic" be rewritten as something like "Commentators were less optimistic" or "Commentators have disagreed with Bush's claim of progress." Just get rid of the word "Other", basically. 98.215.54.162 (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bush is both actor and commentator and your suggested 'improvements' are even more awkward than the original IMHO. Colin4C (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't look now, but your blatant POV is showing. I am certain that we can improve this sentence in a neutral way. Ursasapien (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

When someone comments on something, they are a commentator even if they have other roles. 12.7.175.2 (talk) 16:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a wikipedia account, please could someone add a preposition to

"...along Afghan-Pakistani border" eg "...along the Afghan-Pakistani border" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.169.163 (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, at least in the one place I found it. Let me know if there are other places. Warren Dew (talk) 16:10, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Belligerents

I have added "Blackwater Mercenaries" to the list of belligerents in this conflict. User Uga Man reverted the edit. I am under the impression that Coalition forces are supported by Blackwater Worldwide personnel, who engage deliberately in combat with the intent of projecting force into areas controlled by the military opponents of the Coalition or of frustrating the projection of force by said, making them a belligerent force in the ongoing conflict between the Coalition and opposition forces in Iraq. Unless someone can produce evidence to the contrary, I think I am justified in dereverting the page.

Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 03:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? It is up to the editor wishing to add information to provide references that verify said information. In other words, WP:PROVEIT. Show me a reliable source that calls Blackwater Worldwide personnel a military force in this conflict. Until then, discuss don't revert war. Ursasapien (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

we include turkey in the list and south korea and japan (non combat troops only) so why not blackwater, they clearly take a side in the conflict whether it be for monetary gain rather than diplomatic reasons like some countries, I think blackwater should included in the list with coalition countries, they qualify as a 'Belligerent' since their forces have participated in combat on numerous occasions, far more than Japan or South Korea for example Thisglad (talk) 13:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if it were reasonable to do this, since Blackwater and other contractors' presence is comprised of hundreds of detachments reporting to different U.S. government commands, it would not be practical to list their "commanders" as we do with all of the belligerents. Listing Port (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

the commander of blackwater would be the CEO it seems, but that doesn't have to be listed in the commanders section, but even if it was, whats the problem with that? Iraqi Kurdistan and 'awakening councils' are also not countries, if blackwater can't be included then they shouldn't be either. Thisglad (talk) 05:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/washington/02blackwater.html " Blackwater has been involved in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005, according to a US Congress report" "he report cites two incidents in 2004 when Blackwater contractors joined in military actions, including a firefight in Najaf alongside US and Spanish forces, and another when a Blackwater helicopter team helped a US military unit take control of a mosque, firing at ground targets from the helicopter." they engaged in combat enough times to qualify as a belligerent Thisglad (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

These contractors are NOT an independent force. They are always under the command and control of the U.S. DOD. Ursasapien (talk) 05:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the reference particulars, I think I'm okay with this.

[2] According the congressional report Blackwater gunmen engaged in offensive operations alongside uniformed American military personnel in violation of their State Department contract. The report cites two instances in which Blackwater gunmen engaged in tactical military operations. One was a firefight in Najaf in 2004 during which Blackwater employees set up a machine gun alongside American and Spanish forces. Later that year, a Blackwater helicopter helped an American military squad secure a mosque from which sniper fire had been detected.

Is it a first in modern military history to use contractors in a forward offensive? CKCortez (talk) 05:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you joking? The first time in history that mercenaries have been used in a military offensive? It is not even the first time in U.S. military history. Are you saying you are okay with including a summary of Blackwater's role in the text or are you speaking of including Blackwater as a seperate group of combatants in the "Beligerants" list? I think the former is appropriate and important but the latter is laughable. Ursasapien (talk) 07:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure you can provide reliable sources for your claim of a corporation providing combat troops in a U.S war. You say the DoD controls Blackwater, that's untrue, the U.S Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Coast Guard are directly controlled and run by the DoD, Blackwater Worldwide is a independent corporation and works only on a contract, they are not even all American citizens (it just happens to be based in the U.S), if they engage in combat operations they should be listed separately as a belligerent, they are not members of the U.S military or U.S federal government employees. Thisglad (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Technically all Coalition forces are under controlled by co-operating allied commanders, nonetheless, each country is listed separately. Since blackwater has sent more troops there than anyone on the list expect the U.S., why not include them as well? Certified: the above written by S. Martin at 03:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater should not be listed as a separate combatant. Technically, they are private security contractors employed by the US government--which means they would fall under the list of US forces, not as an independent combatant. Unfortunately, the current US military system has six branches; Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, and Contractors. Publicus 22:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

that is original research on your part, contractors are not subject to U.S military law unlike department of defense employees Thisglad (talk) 09:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Black water is a contractor, primarily providing security services to the State Department. Are we going to list the State Department as an independent combatant? MWShort (talk) 14:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Any separate millitary (ie present for combat) group in this fight is a belligerant. Blackwater has a deservedly bad reputation, and as such, Iraq war supporters often view mention of the mercenaries as a prelude to an anti-war statement. Nevertheless, denying their belligerant role is hardly accurate. Oh, and incidentally, Thisglad and MWShort, forces serving another faction are already listed as separate combatants. Remember the "Awakening Councils?" --Aiyen kin Leary —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aiyen kin Leary (talk • contribs) 15:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Blackwater engaging

Setting aside the question of whether they should be in the infobox, why don't we have anything about the fact that they have been violating their State Department contract by engaging in tactical military operations? 76.225.156.160 (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The source for that is in italics under "Belligerents" above. Dream Academy (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

However, despite the ceasefire order militiamen kept their weapons and blended back into the population leaving Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki politically defeated. Also the Iraqi security forces performed poorly against the militia during the fighting which raised questions again if the Iraqi military and police are still not ready to assume security operations in the country.

This is hardly fair. Its much too early to declare Mailiki politically defeated. The offensive against the Mahdi Army left inconclusive results-no one achieved total victory, and neither side capitulated. This paragraph suggests that Sadr and his militia dealt a complete and total defeat to the Iraqi and Coalition security forces, which isn't true. Wikipedia's own article on the anti-Mahdi Army offensive declares the fighting inconclusive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphabravo11 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's also not fair to say the ISF performed poorly. They did very well in Najaf, Karbala, Al Kut and the other cities in south center Iraq. The reason they did poorly in Basra is because Maliki forced the operation to start before the Iraqi army was fully in position and before they had the food, water and ammunition they needed for the fighting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robbini (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

no mention of international law?

Kinda surprised not to find the terms "international law" or "war crime" in the article... google gives 217,000 results for the search: "iraq war" "interational law" and more for "war crime" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nlevitt (talk • contribs) 07:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a quote from Kofi Annan under "Opposition to the invasion" and if you click through the see-alsos at the top of that section (supersection) maybe there is something there. Listing Port (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I added

Further information: criticism of the Iraq War, legitimacy of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and legality of the Iraq War

but those last two articles should probably be merged(?) Listing Port (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Operation Iraqi Liberation

It was also named this for a brief period, no? The story was that the White House was surprised once the acronym was discovered . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.13.40.237 (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Source please. This seems like silly urban legend. Ursasapien (talk) 06:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is already referenced in 2003 invasion of Iraq. The source is a primary one (a White House Press Briefing), however, and it's not clear to me that it is a good source on which to draw the conclusion that article does. For all we know Ari Fleischer may have misspoke. Anyhow, the reference is there, maybe I'll toodle off to question the veracity of the reference on that page. Debate (talk) 07:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda

We'll need a new section here on Rumsfeld von Goebbels and his propaganda machine.

Are there any editors who are active, someone who would be willing to participate in crating such section?

Any help would be appreciated, here is initial source (probably the best reference)>

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

However, the tarnishing facts entered the mainstream and initial report will probably be extended, so there is lot of ground to cover. Please, share your thoughts. Tachyonbursts (talk) 19:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to be much more neutral in order to have an article like that on Wikipedia. Comparing Rummy to a nazi is not encyclopedic (and I personally can't stand the man). Czolgolz (talk) 19:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're not in the article main space and I have no intention at all to call Rummy Goebbels there (although we could easily draw some historical parabolas and we wouldn’t miss the point). Anyway, I'd say we can be a bit more relaxed here at the backstage, so please, just focus on the provided source, all I'm saying is that we should carry it and reference it here. Although propaganda at the time of war is not uncommon, NYT expose really showed the size of that thing, and these new revelations definitely deserve some space. That said, I'm all for NPOV, and I have no intention at all to let my personal view spill out of the talk-pages…

So, to clear things up a bit, I'd suggest we call this new section 'Run-up to Iraq' or 'Pentagon propaganda program', or something along those lines… That first sentence above was to serve as descriptor, nothing more. Please keep in mind that we're dealing with the developing, or rather current event.

Here is a pretty good summary for those who prefer quick scan on the issue>

Pentagon Propaganda: So Much Worse Than We Thought, any thoughts? Tachyonbursts (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you think the link you posted is anywhere in the galaxy of neutral, all hope is lost. The NYT is not neutral, but alternet.org is left wing propaganda that should not be considered reliable. Your bias is clearly showing in your Reductio ad Hitlerum. Perhaps, Rumsfeld would be better compared to Henry L. Stimson who facilitated the necessary propaganda to sell WWII.

If you would like to have a paragraph that states that there was an organized campaign to ramp up support for the Iraq War, then write one on this page. Other editors can tweak it and we can build consensus before moving it to the main article. However, find good sources and avoid kooky conspiracy theories (and tone down the unecessarily inflamatory rhetoric). Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

As stated before, this is developing issue which entered the mainstream, [3], [4]. It seems to me that it is maturing nicely; there will be no need for alternative or biased references. Please, consider carefully what's been written so far, and no, I don't think that particular reductio is applicable on the issue. There are some serious flaws here, but we'll get them in due time. One such flaw is lack of 9/11-Iraq link which is already recognized within Wikipedia. If no one is willing to participate in this effort I'll take upon your advice, as soon as time allows.

'Go massive . . . Sweep it all up. Things related and not.' Tachyonbursts (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The pics of Saddam

The just-captured and in-court photos of Saddam are too close together. Can't the latter be moved down to the trial info? 75.61.100.189 (talk) 11:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved the trial pix to Trial of Saddam Hussein-there's a wiki link in the article. Publicus 14:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bush - March 2002 - "Fuck Saddam, We're Taking Him Out " Should Be Added to Article

I believe George W. Bush's words in March 2002, "Fuck Saddam, we're taking him out.", stated when he poked his head into a meeting Rice was having with three U.S. Senators should be added to the article.

It speaks to dishonesty in the official story laid out by the White House that the President was seeking diplomatic options for dealing with Iraq right until the very end before the invasion. From this statement in March 2002 it is clear he was not going to accept anything less than Saddam's removal from power in Iraq under his Presidential term.

Opinions? 72.209.12.250 (talk) 03:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Bob Francis

Do you have a source for this information? It seems somewhat out of character for the President of the United States to "poke his head in" to a meeting and drop the F-bomb. Ursasapien (talk) 04:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine. Here is the url for the story:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1004567,00.html 72.209.12.250 (talk) 04:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Bob Francis

You certainly do have a source. I am still a little incredulous a the thought of Bush using this language, but that may be my own bias. I would encourage you to be bold and add it to the article (make sure you cite your reference). What is the worst that can happen? You get reverted and then (hopefully) they bring it back to the talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 05:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that this subject is so controversial you can almost always find sources on both sides of any issue, I think if this is added, it needs to be added in the form "Time magazine reported that ...", unless you can find official acknowledgement. You then have to decide whether it's noteworthy that one reporter thought that in a news analysis piece, which is more like an opinion piece than like a news article. The reporter was presumably not at the meeting, so he's likely relying on the very human memory of one of the Senators, who isn't sure enough to allow the reporter to quote him. We also don't know if it was an official policy statement or a joke - remember Reagan's "the bombers are on their way to Moscow" remark when he thought he was off mike.

Personally I'm not surprised at the language - everyone uses language in private that they wouldn't use in public - but I'd suggest not spelling out the first word, just as the source does not. If the point you are trying to make is that the administration had plans to invade Iraq all along, I'd suggest digging a little deeper, as there are more complete analyses to that effect, some of which are cited in the "Justification for the war in iraq" article. Come to think of it, that article would probably be a better place for this, anyway - it's got all sorts of things like this in it, so this would be one more piece of evidence in an article that's specifically about tht subject. Warren Dew (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the Rationale for the Iraq War page is not currently protected, so it might be a good place for a new wikipedian to start. Warren Dew (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't this article ever mention the fact that many refer to this War as the War on Iraq?

"War on Iraq" brings up over 2 million Google results (in quotes), so it is definitely a widely used name for the war, particularly among the opponents of the war. I don't have any issues with the content of the article, but it would be nice if it stated that the fact that many opponents call it the War on Iraq, not the Iraq War, was mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.234.199.61 (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The most common name by far is the "Iraq War", not "War on Iraq"--which is more of a search parameter than an actual name. Publicus 22:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of India argument?

One of the reasons we went to Iraq was to bring Democracy and hopefully have it spread throughtout the region. But India is in that region and Democracy really hasnt spread from India (which is the worlds largest Democracy) so if it hasnt spread from India, why Iraq?.....For those who say India is not Muslim, well thats true, but India has the second or third largest Muslim population in the world, and has many cultural and historical links to other Muslim countries.....And for those who say India is not Arab, well then by that logic Democracy could never spread from Iraq, because countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, & Iran are also not Arab. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC) (User [Aryan818])

reason for invading iraq?

The article states: The main rationale offered by the United States Administration for the Iraq War was the Iraqi regimes continued violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions stemming from the first Gulf War.[40] Two supporting rationales for the invasion were offered by U.S. President George W. Bush and coalition supporters: the allegation that Iraq was at least passively supporting al-Qaeda and potentially providing a low-level of active support, and that it possessed older WMDs, particularly Chemical and Biological weapons, and was actively seeking the development of weapons of mass destruction more advanced (WMD) in violation of the first Gulf War cease-fire agreements, United Nations resolutions and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Profileration Treaty.[41][42]

I dont think this is entirely true, the main reason, at least Bush played again and again was the existence of WMD. I don't think the congress or the senate would have voted for the war without the WMD part. Easymem (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

     The presence of WMD in and of themselves is not justification under international law to invade another sovereign country.  The Security Council resolution relating to the first Gulf War was cited at a possible(although arguably very weak) source of support for the legality of the war